How does ‘class-passing’ actually work?

Re:How does ‘class-passing’ actually work? by zeveb on Thursday February 01, 2018 @04:16PM (#16285988)

> What I've seen (and mentioned in another comment) is that the upper classes view "education" to mean private liberal arts school, not math/computers/science. I think those are viewed as too hard to pursue if you don't have to and populated by non-rich people.

I don't think that it's about the difficulty of math/computers/science; it's about the goal of the degree. A liberal arts degree is not a vocational credential: it means that one has been taught to think (literally, the 'liberal arts' are those studies useful to a free man, not an employee). If you have a math or chemistry degree, that can still be upper-class so long as you're not intending to make your money in math or chemistry; it's when you had to study a subject so that you can afford to live that you mark yourself as not upper class.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How does ‘class-passing’ actually work? by malvosenior on Thursday February 01, 2018 @05:32PM (#16286580)

You’re correct about gaining an education that has nothing to do with employment as a signaling device. Your comment touches on my other point though. Regardless of employment options, “thinking” in the 21st century means STEM. Not knowing how to program is similar to not knowing how to read. I do think there’s a natural aptitude required to do STEM that has no relation to class. I think that’s why we see a lot of anti-tech commentary from institutions that have traditionally branded liberal arts as the only way to “think”.

[ Parent | on HN ]